中国政治参与的空间价态模型

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Theoretical Politics Pub Date : 2019-03-18 DOI:10.1177/0951629819833190
Jason Y. Wu
{"title":"中国政治参与的空间价态模型","authors":"Jason Y. Wu","doi":"10.1177/0951629819833190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In spatial models of political competition in democracies, citizens vote for the party or candidate that is the closest to their own ideological position, while in valence models, voters decide on the basis of non-policy factors, such as competence. What remains unclear, however, is whether citizens in authoritarian regimes use spatial or valence considerations to guide their decisions to participate in politics. This study uses data from the 2015 Chinese Urban Governance Survey to measure the ideology of Chinese citizens, and estimates an empirical stochastic model to explore how Chinese citizens use ideological distance and valence to determine how they want to participate in politics. The results show that valence issues, such as perceived government competence, play a larger role in political participation than ideology.","PeriodicalId":51606,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theoretical Politics","volume":"31 1","pages":"244 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0951629819833190","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A spatial valence model of political participation in China\",\"authors\":\"Jason Y. Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0951629819833190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In spatial models of political competition in democracies, citizens vote for the party or candidate that is the closest to their own ideological position, while in valence models, voters decide on the basis of non-policy factors, such as competence. What remains unclear, however, is whether citizens in authoritarian regimes use spatial or valence considerations to guide their decisions to participate in politics. This study uses data from the 2015 Chinese Urban Governance Survey to measure the ideology of Chinese citizens, and estimates an empirical stochastic model to explore how Chinese citizens use ideological distance and valence to determine how they want to participate in politics. The results show that valence issues, such as perceived government competence, play a larger role in political participation than ideology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Theoretical Politics\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"244 - 259\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0951629819833190\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Theoretical Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629819833190\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theoretical Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629819833190","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在民主政治竞争的空间模型中,公民投票给最接近自己意识形态立场的政党或候选人,而在价态模型中,选民根据能力等非政策因素进行决定。然而,尚不清楚的是,专制政权下的公民是利用空间考虑还是价值考虑来指导他们参与政治的决定。本研究使用2015年中国城市治理调查的数据来衡量中国公民的意识形态,并估计一个经验随机模型来探讨中国公民如何使用意识形态距离和价来决定他们想要如何参与政治。结果显示,效价问题,如对政府能力的感知,在政治参与中比意识形态发挥更大的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A spatial valence model of political participation in China
In spatial models of political competition in democracies, citizens vote for the party or candidate that is the closest to their own ideological position, while in valence models, voters decide on the basis of non-policy factors, such as competence. What remains unclear, however, is whether citizens in authoritarian regimes use spatial or valence considerations to guide their decisions to participate in politics. This study uses data from the 2015 Chinese Urban Governance Survey to measure the ideology of Chinese citizens, and estimates an empirical stochastic model to explore how Chinese citizens use ideological distance and valence to determine how they want to participate in politics. The results show that valence issues, such as perceived government competence, play a larger role in political participation than ideology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Theoretical Politics
Journal of Theoretical Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Journal of Theoretical Politics is an international journal one of whose principal aims is to foster the development of theory in the study of political processes. It provides a forum for the publication of original papers seeking to make genuinely theoretical contributions to the study of politics. The journal includes rigorous analytical articles on a range of theoretical topics. In particular, it focuses on new theoretical work which is broadly accessible to social scientists and contributes to our understanding of political processes. It also includes original syntheses of recent theoretical developments in diverse fields.
期刊最新文献
Tell me the truth? Dictatorship and the commitment to media freedom Law enforcement and political misinformation Decentralised information transmission in the shadow of conflict (Not) Addressing issues in electoral campaigns Collective agency and positive political theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1